I had an interesting discussion the other day about the merits of so-called "black book" organisations who (claim to) use their networks to introduce prospects.

On one level my thoughts were "whatever works"... but then again, I wondered whether these models really are effective?

Certainly the concept is nothing new and it's used in a number of different ways by many businesses. But, I've yet to see the "gun for hire" model of referrals really work in any sustained way.

Let me explain.

Actively getting referrals into businesses is used by companies all the time.

Whether it's through partnering with another business or even assembling an advisory board, there are many different ways you can leverage existing relationships.

To me, a fundamental part of all these models is the building of trust and the alignment of both parties.

If you hire a key industry influencer to back your business (such as bringing them into a non-executive position or perhaps as an investor) then they have publicly aligned themselves with your business. They wouldn't do this unless they shared your vision and had build trust in your business.

Once they've got to that position, it's natural that they'll follow through by using their personal contacts.

But, I'm not convinced that people will use (or should I say abuse) their contacts on a "paid for" or "gun for hire" basis.

For a start, all contacts have a finite appetite for referrals. Call them too often and they'll just stop taking your calls. It's a balancing act.

Also, how persistent will someone be if there's no initial traction? Not very I bet.

I've seen these models come and go.

There were some great sounding online versions a few years ago which I thought would really take off. The proposition was simple: you post up who you want to meet and the 1000's of registered "introducers" put you in contact with people. The pitch to the introducers was "make money out of your contacts".

You know what... all those sites are now dead.

Equally, there are some businesses out there that aim to be intermediaries. Often this model falls down when you ask "who pays".

If the person being introduced pays (which is quite common) then the question is, who are they really acting in the best interests of?

In some industries, such as recruitment, it's clear who pays and who is the "client". In others, such as talent agents, there's an established business model and everyone knows who does what and who pays who.

The trouble is that, in more generic markets, these models don't really stack up.

If you want to get infront of prospects then someone has to "go out to bat" on your behalf. Sure, they're going to take some rejection along the way, plus they're going to have to be politely persistent to get through.

But that's all part of the process.

Of course, if you are trying to influence C-level executives for extremely large, high-risk pieces of work then you're in a different league. This is where having influence on the inside is critical and relationships such as advisory boards are essential.

And, in that case, you need a solid relationship, not someone who will simply "pimp" their trust to the highest bidder.

Labels: networking, prospect marketing

Just thought I'd post about an event I'm attending on 10th June called Being Digital.

The format is based on 22 successful mashup* events and, as I've attended a number of shorter formats in the past, I'm excited about this full day event.

Being digital is all about debating the issues that matter when delivering and designing a digital mashup service.

The event has seven themed debates on advertising, identity, content, location, social, retail and search across the important platforms of web, mobile and TV. In each theme there will be leading demo companies showing why it is real and how advanced some actually are.

A couple of our clients are also attending, and another client chaired their TV 2.0 event last year so I know from experience it provides excellent value.

No big company slide deck - just real cutting edge stuff.

A must for any digital entrepreneur. See you there!

Labels: entrepreneurs, networking, new business development, start-ups

I recently re-read an interesting article in the Harvard Business Review, "Better Sales Networks".

The article looks at different types of social networks and how each is more suited to different sales tasks.

The article shows how "sparser networks are better at getting access to unique information", whereas denser networks are "more desirable for coordination purposes".

As someone who predominantly uses my network for prospecting & lead generation on behalf of clients I can understand this completely.

In fact, the article recommends that "salespeople looking for new and unique information should cultivate broad marketplace networks" and suggests that, as not everyone is naturally good at this task, companies should "consider decoupling lead generation from other tasks"

I found that a very interesting observation. Not that lead generation should be decoupled - there's nothing new there. No, the comment that not everyone is "naturally good" at developing diverse contacts.

If you've been following many of the social networking platforms there's always this "quality vs quantity" debate going on. It's an old chestnut and I don't intend to add to it here, except to say that it always seems to polarise opinion.

I'm certainly firmly in to "quantity" camp as I use tools such as LinkedIn to develop access to a large and diverse range of potential contacts. If you look at all the most "connected" people on LinkedIn (apparently I've dropped a few places to #41) they're dominated by people who need to access information - such as recruiters, investors, researchers, biz dev people, etc [plus a few who just seem to be in it for the game of who can be top]

LinkedIn is such as powerful tool as it allows you to see your extended network in ways not previously possible.

But, to get back to my point, people in the "quality" camp will tell you that the most important thing is how strong the relationships are in the network, not how many connections you have.

Of course, if their focus is on coordination (getting experts together, getting contacts to actually do something for them) then it's important to not only have strong ties with their contacts, but it's important that they are also connected to each other. That makes sense.

Another way of putting it is that the more commitment you are asking for, the stronger you need the relationship to be.

If I'm just calling someone to find some relatively low-value (to them) information, then a sparse network with weak-ties is not only fit for purpose, it is actually optimum for my purpose as it gives me the widest range of access.

However, if I wanted to use this network for a purpose which requires much more commitment from my contacts (such as getting them to collaborate with me on a project) it's unlikely I would get such support unless I had taken the time to build a strong relationship with them (which, in turn, takes more time to cultivate and therefore is likely to reduce the size, and diversity, of my network)

So, in summary, if you're looking for information, you ideally want a sparse network (ie, it doesn't matter if each "node" of your network is not connected with another). If you want to get things done, you need a more tightly configured (and probably smaller) network.

Common sense really. Which isn't bad for Harvard ;-)

Labels: networking, sales

openBC have just published their 2nd international openBC survey "Communication & Networking on the Internet".

Amongst it's findings is the fact that "beyond establishing business contacts (55%), almost one in six are now reporting business deals with openBC contact partners."

China tops the global league of openBC users with 22% having already generated new business and sales via openBC. This is followed by South America (18.7%), Europe (16.4%) and USA with 11.9%.

For me this is very interesting as it demonstrates that openBC really does have a global reach. Seeing China at the top of generating business online makes sense and, for me, illustrates how successful the platform is for finding (or being found by) new business contacts; a point I made in my previous post LinkedIn or openBC...or both!

Another even more interesting fact is that networking on the Internet is now seen as more important than at events.

The report shows that "Communication on the Internet is standard business practice. Apart from email, messenging and blogging, networking platforms for maintaining contacts with business associates and friends have developed into a convenient application. It’s interesting to note that networking on the Internet is currently more important for openBC users than maintaining contacts at events. Cultural differences play hardly any role in this."

I can certainly agree with this statement. For me, online networking platforms are a daily part of my business. Over half of my clients find me through either openBC, LinkedIn or Ecademy. Plus, when I am working on consulting or sales outsourcing projects for clients, I am able to use my network to help shape a client's value proposition and identify the most appropriate contacts within organisations.

Plus, openBC has been a great way of meeting new people to understand specific markets and sectors, as well as find associates to collaborate on projects.

Labels: networking, sales, social networking sites

I've just got back from a few days at the 3GSM World Congress in Barcelona.

Amid the million dollar stands and hospitality suites, I've been networking with VC's and Startups in this exciting space.

I always enjoy events such as 3GSM because you get to see the different layers of the industry and the buzz of deals being done in the aisles and cafes (not to mention the bars and parties).

Hopefully, my feet should stop aching before it comes around again next year ;-)

Labels: networking

I've recently joined the RFID Tribe, a global radio frequency identification (RFID) collaboration forum.

The group of industry experts collaborates on RFID and sensor technology, standards, venture capital, products, solutions, industry trends, people and events.

I joined the tribe because of our previous work in the RFID space, including an outsourced sales project for a $500m Japanese Manufacturer.

Maine Associates is also currently in discussions with a number of startups in this interesting space.

Labels: networking

I'm going to be at the 3GSM World Congress in Barcelona this year. This is the first time 3GSM, the world's premier mobile event, has been to Barcelona, previously being held in Cannes.

962 companies have signed up as exhibitors, showcasing their latest mobile products, services and solutions. 50,000 visitors are also expected in Barcelona.

I'm representing a number of new startups and will be networking with the ususal crowd of VC's, Entrepreneurs and Wireless Industry professionals.

If you're there...drop me a line and we meet up to say "hola"

Labels: networking